[Siri]

Originally Posted by Ryan Dognaux

At least to your first points - technology and energy required are basically the same if you're already webcasting the event. See my post from another thread on the technology aspect - https://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/s...0&postcount=30 Don't make a mountain out a mole hill on the technology piece.

Seriously. I would very much like to see this implemented as: 1) improve the webcasts to Make It Louder 2) experiment with replay methods behind the scenes, 3) go from there.

We all agree that the system is not perfect. We're likely to disagree about the proper effort to devote to various improvements. But this desire to shoot down any potentialities before even investigating their manifested difficulties is very aggravating. The biggest obstacle to experimentation is the technological investment, which largely piggybacks off other vast improvements that go directly to public FInspirationRST. Then experiment with how much different cameras help, how to integrate and navigate feeds, how to handle FMS and turnaround issues, etc, behind the scenes. Then handle actual implementation and restrictions thereon.

I also take serious issue with the "it's unfair if it's not X, and you definitely can't do X" strawmen. The status quo is unfair; insisting that an improvement become perfectly fair is unreasonable. Calls will still be missed whether replay is automatic for every second of every match, available throughout quals, available only by challenge in elims, available only to the head ref, what have you. The fact that calls will be missed doesn't mean missing fewer in some systematic way is equivalent. (Though you're of course free to argue it's irrelevant to the goal of FIRST, which is at best going to land on agree-to-disagree again.)

Originally Posted by Sperkowsky

Off topic a bit but this doesn't work out in my mind. Someone in college can correct me if I am wrong but if a professor made a mistake grading a test that caused hundreds of kids to fail and you alerted them of it you are telling me they wouldn't fix it?

I've been both a grader and a student in this situation, and it's a black-and-white call, it's far rarer that it won't be changed. And I've of course also corrected my own bosses with evidence; I do not understand this argument. If the evidence is ambiguous they may debate it or ignore you, but if it's a cut-and-dry equivalent of "they crossed the defense"--and there's still a way to correct it--every good boss I've had will. And I certainly don't hold the initial call against them if it was reasonable and they correct it responsibly. In fact, the whole thing is very analogous to the way providing video evidence in any situation should work. And I'm saying this as a veteran referee. I have reservations about replay, but that's certainly not one of them.